National Republican., 1887-03-29
CASHIER Balm RELEASED.
The Indictment on which He Was
Tried Pronounced Defective.

The Supreme Court OF the United States
yesterday gave a decision in the habeas
corpus case of George NJ. Balm, jr., Justice
Miller delivering the opinion Of the court.
Balm, the petitioner, was cashier OF the
Exchange National Bank OF Norfolk, Va,
and was indicted under section 500 Of the
Revised Statutes for making false report
or statement as to the condition OF that
bank. He was tried, found guilty, aud
sentenced to five years. imprisonment In
the Albany penitentiary. lie made appli-
cation to the Supreme Court for writ OF
haboas corpus and discharge from the Gus
tody Of the United States marshal on the
ground first, that the indictment on which
he was tried was not found by legal or
valid grand jury, and, second, that the In
void because, after IL came from the grand
jury, the court allowed &c to be altered and
amended.
Without considering the question as to
the validity OF the grand jury, the court In
a careful opinion holds: "First, That au In
dictment found by grand jury was indspen-
sable to the power OF the court totry the
petitioner for the crime with which he was
charged; Second, That the indictment on
which he was tried after 1t had been
changed and amended by order or permis-
zion OF the court, was no longer the indct-
| ment of the grand jury that presented IT,
Any other doctrine would place the rights
OF the citizen, which were intended to be
protected by the constitutional provision, at
the mercy and control of the court or prose
cutting attorney; or II IL he once held that
changes can be made by the consent or the
order Of the court in the body of the indlct.
ment as presented by the grand Jury, aud
the prisoner can be called upon to answer
to The Indictment as thus changed, the
restriction which the constitution places
upon the power Of the court in regard TO
In reality no longer exists. It is OF no
| avail under such circumstances to say that
| the court still has jurisdiction OF the per-
| son and OF the crime, for although 1t has
| possession Of the person and would have
| jurisdiction Of the crime II 1t were prop.
erly presented by indictment, the jurisllc-
| tion OF the offense is gone, and the court
has no right to proceed any further in the
case for want OF an Indictment. IL there
is nothing before the court which the
| prisoner, In the language Of the constitu-
ton, can be 'held to answer he Is en-
titled to be discharged, so far as the ofrense
originally presented to the court by the in
dictment is concerned. The power Of the
court to proceed to try tho prisoner Is as
much arrested as II the Indictment had been
dismissed or Dolle pros. had been entered.
There was nothing before the court on
which It could hear evidence or pronounce
sentence. The case comes within the prin-
ciples laid down by this court In ex parte
Lange 1S Wall, 1881, ex parte
Parks 1893 United States, 1S),
ex parte Wilson (l14 United States,
41sl, and other cases. These views dipense
with tho necessity Of examining into the
question concerning the formation OF the
grand jury and It's removal from place to
place within the district. The court is of
the opinion that the petitioner is entitled
to the writ of habeas corpus and it is ac-
cordiDgly granted"
The decision of the court is practically
equivalent to a discharge Of the prisoner
from custody.